Jump to content

What kind of Hardware do you use to run KSP

acidr4in

By acidr4in
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

M5000

M5000

Posted
Posted

AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition, AM2+ Socket (3.0 GHz Quad Core, archaic really, but it's been a very reliable CPU)

8GB DDR2 RAM

Sapphire ATI Radeon HD4850 512MB RAM, PCI Express x16 2.0

Western Digital Caviar Blue 640GB HDD, SATA 2.0

Yes, my system is old. About five years so to the original build.

Yes, it will still run whatever I throw at it in an acceptable quality and framerate to me.

KSP has been so heavily optimized that even archaic systems such as mine are able to play the game effectively. If you're having problems and your system is more advanced or higher-spec than mine, you may want to look into your settings. Mind you, I can't play with absolutely full everything, but I can still play it without the game looking horrible. Again, I say, if you're having legitimate issues with framerate on a rig similar or better than mine in "theory", you may want to look into some driver updates, or check your task manager to make sure something isn't eating up your processor in the background, because, if OP is to be taken literally and believed, a 6-10 part vessel (more than 5 parts) should cause no reasonable rig a significant performance drop as is being described.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Karriz

Karriz

Posted
Posted

i5 3337U, 4GB RAM and Nvidia 740M here (a laptop). The game runs playable on highest settings, although I haven't tried building anything massive, and I try not to use too many mods which could lower the performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AngelLestat

AngelLestat

Posted
Posted

I use the CRAY TITAN supercomputer from Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Processors: 6274 AMD Opteron of 16 cores

Video: 18688 GPUs Nvidia Tesla K20

17,59 petaFLOPS

Memory 710 TiB (598 TiB CPU y 112 TiB GPU)

I build a SSTO airplane with 500 parts and run it at 15 FPS :S

So I guess the game still needs to be optimized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeMeSiS

NeMeSiS

Posted
Posted (edited)
I use the CRAY TITAN supercomputer from Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Processors: 6274 AMD Opteron of 16 cores

Video: 18688 GPUs Nvidia Tesla K20

17,59 petaFLOPS

Memory 710 TiB (598 TiB CPU y 112 TiB GPU)

I build a SSTO airplane with 500 parts and run it at 15 FPS :S

Ofcourse it would, you are still limited by the per-core performance since PhysX is single threaded and the limiting factor. :P

Anyway:

Desktop

i5-3570K @ Stock 3.4Ghz

8GB DDR3 @ 1600Mhz

HD7870 2GB

Laptop:

i3-Something

4GB

Intel HD3000

Runs fine on my desktop, but it needs some config tweaking to run decently on my laptop without looking like poo. Also, larger stations (>300 parts) are not possible on my laptop.

Edited by NeMeSiS
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CommandantAce

CommandantAce

Posted
Posted

Core i7 x 980, 3.33GHz, 6 core, hyper-threaded

3 GB Mem DDR3 1864 MHz in triple channel

MSI Bigbang-xpower x58, stock clocks

Western Digital Raptors, 10k RPM, 3.5", Raid 1

Radeon HD 5900

Win 7 Pro sp1 32bit

The best $3000 could by 3yrs ago. I am now looking for a second video card to add. They are hard to find now.

Notes: Among other optimizations, I have the Glass GUI disabled. The hard drives are configured wrong in the bois but that has not caused any issues. The game crashes reliably in full screen but never in windowed mode, I just run in windowed mode. Music is off so I can listen to the sound track of 2001: A Space Odyssey on another PC. I keep the frame rate at 60 fps. I've only had 4 or 5 simultaneous flights, part of a space station and so far docking is a joy. In the Task manager I can see the 6 cores utilized with the 1st core doing most of the work, the Hyper-threaded cores are not used at all. I guess it helps to have 6 cores to ripping away on 1 thread. Its a sweet rig and only exists to play KSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tw1

Tw1

Posted
Posted (edited)

Some sort of i7 with eight logic cores (I think), 2gb nvidia graphics, 8gb ram, windows eight laptop. At lowest settings, it flew a 1500+ part infiniglder at a couple of frames per second.

Edited by Tw1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kowbell

Kowbell

Posted
Posted

Currently only a:

Intel Core i7-3770k

8GB Corsair VENGANCE DDR3 1600MHz RAM

WD Blue 500GB (That's all I wanted) 7200RPM HDD

Intel HD 4000 Graphics (which only struggle on KSP and GTA IV)

All on a (tiny) 19" 1440x900 monitor that has trouble comfortably fitting KSP on the screen and, due to age, is deteriorating and an extra 17" 1280x1024 monitor which was one of the earlier personal-use LCD monitors and is showing its age as well.

Still waiting for multi-core support.

Saving up for

MSI GTX 760 2GB GDDR5

2x ASUS 23" 1920x1080 monitor

An extra 1TB HDD

Two 128GB SSD (which I will RAID 0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nostromo

Nostromo

Posted
Posted

CPU: i7-3770k @ 4.2ghz

RAM: 16gb Ripjaws DDR3 1600MHz

MOBO: Z77 Pro4 ASRock

GPU: Nvidia GTX 560 2gb (forgot which brand)

SSD: 3 Different ones, Samsung 840, 830 and ADATA S510

HDD: 1TB Seagate Barricuda

SOUND: SoundBlaster Recon3D

OS: Win7 64

Monitor: Asus 27inch

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
dstruct2k

dstruct2k

Posted
Posted (edited)

CPU: AMD Phenom X4 9950BE @ 3.0 GHz

RAM: 8GB DDR2-1066

Mobo: Asus M4A78

GPU: either of the following: Radeon 5770 or Radeon 5830 (I've got a few of each model kicking around for... reasons...)

OS: Windows 8.1

The OS and portions of KSP are stored on an SSD (using mklink or SteamMover to keep only the important stuff, like /GameData/, on the SSD) and load times are negligible, no matter what mods I install.

What I don't understand is the MASSIVE difference in performance between those 2 GPUs; The 5770 can barely draw KSC at 60FPS with nothing more than a command pod sitting on the launchpad, while the 5830 has no issues holding 60FPS anywhere, even with 200+ part monstrosities. The rest of the system doesn't change, and the 5830 should only be about 20% more powerful than the 5770... I've never had other games be so much "happier" with a 5830 over a 5770. Anyone have similar experience?

Edited by dstruct2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jouni

Jouni

Posted
Posted

I'm using a fairly old iMac. I originally bought it for work, but then the update to Lion broke OpenMP support, so the computer became mostly useless for its original purpose.

The CPU is some early Core i7, probably 870. There is 16 GB of RAM, an SSD that is slow by today's standards, enough disk space, and a Radeon HD5750 GPU. It runs KSP reasonably well in a 1920x1080 window, but the lag starts getting annoying at around 250-300 parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jart

Jart

Posted
Posted (edited)

Lag, hmm I have not experienced any but I am new and really have not exceeded 500 parts yet.

Cooler Master HAF XB

4670K OC [email protected] / ASUS Z87 Pro / NH-D14

Kingston Genesis 8 GB

ASUS R9 280x DCU II TOP

OS drive - Samsung 840 Evo 120

Steam drive - Samsung 840 250

PC Power and Cooling 750W Mk III Silencer

Asus VG248qe

Win 7/64

I have tried playing remotely on my PC from a kindle hdx .. Yeah you get a bit of a frame hit on the Kindle :wink:

Edited by Jart
sp
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaxxQ

MaxxQ

Posted
Posted

Mobo: Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3

CPU: AMD FX 8350 Black Edition eight-core @4Ghz (stock - I don't do overclocking)

RAM: 16Gb DDR3 1866

Video: Nvidia GeForce GTX780ti

HDD: 2x Seagate 2Tb

Win7Pro 64

27" Asus monitor at 1920 x 1080 x 60Hz

All contained in a 3 year-old Cooler Master Cosmos case. I have two new 140mm fans on the way because the original Cosmos stock 120mm fans are starting to wear out and getting noisy.

Just upgraded last weekend, because I needed moar power for Blender rendering. The last 3 minute animation/video I rendered took two months (started December 16, ended February 16) of running 24/7 to render out. Using the Nvidia CUDA features with Blender as opposed to CPU rendering with my old AMD HD7970 reduced rendering times by roughly 20%.

I never played KSP on the old rig, so have no basis for comparison, and I'm a new KSP player (just bought it a week ago), so have yet to break 100 parts on a rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobnova

Bobnova

Posted
Posted

3770k, stock clocks.

16GB of ram running way slower than I thought it was (oops), it's at 1333-9-9-9, should be 1600-8-8-8.

Vertex 3 MIOPS 240GB SSD.

Reference GTX580 at stock speeds.

Poor abused liquid electrical tape coated vaseline smeared TZ77XE4 motherboard. It and the CPU have spent a fair amount of time on dry ice and liquid nitrogen cooling.

7-64-ultimate.

5830 has a lot more memory bandwidth than the 5770. Like a lot. Which benchmark you look at changes how much faster than the 5770 it is pretty significantly. You're looking at a significantly faster core on the 5830 (more shaders), and twice the memory bandwidth.

Short version: 5770 is the best of the meh 5xxx cards. 5830 is the slowest of the good 5xxx cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...